The right wing lie about trickle down. by chart

[jbander]

Does the right ever use the truth at all, I mean every word seems like a lie or distortion. The King of all liars is their Mighty leader scum bag.

 

[jbander]

You are correct about the wealth generated since the financial crisis of 2008, and, I believe, correct that income distribution is becoming a serious problem.

However, you haven't made any case for your assertion that this is happening because of tax laws. I don't think that's true, since as another poster pointed out, the top earners are paying a higher share of total income tax now than they did ten years ago. Almost half of people pay no net income tax. Any cut in rates will naturally benefit those who are paying the most tax already, which is why every tax cut is made out to be "for the rich", and the opposite is true of every increase in rates. Finally, tax does not reduce or increase income to anyone, it simply takes a percentage of income; how can it cause an income distribution?

I think we have to look for some other structural explanation for the change in income distribution. I suspect the rapid growth of information technology is part of it. That's overall a good thing in itself, but it tends to devalue a lot of labor and pay off more for owners than for employees. There are probably other causes. Tax laws ought to be optimized, for certain, but they won't fix the problem.

Then you have to have the answer why since 1981 all but pennies went to the top. and why should it. We are waiting.
Tax rate for the top bracket went from 70% to 28% what would you think would happen.

 

[jbander]

You are correct about the wealth generated since the financial crisis of 2008, and, I believe, correct that income distribution is becoming a serious problem.

However, you haven't made any case for your assertion that this is happening because of tax laws. I don't think that's true, since as another poster pointed out, the top earners are paying a higher share of total income tax now than they did ten years ago. Almost half of people pay no net income tax. Any cut in rates will naturally benefit those who are paying the most tax already, which is why every tax cut is made out to be "for the rich", and the opposite is true of every increase in rates. Finally, tax does not reduce or increase income to anyone, it simply takes a percentage of income; how can it cause an income distribution?

I think we have to look for some other structural explanation for the change in income distribution. I suspect the rapid growth of information technology is part of it. That's overall a good thing in itself, but it tends to devalue a lot of labor and pay off more for owners than for employees. There are probably other causes. Tax laws ought to be optimized, for certain, but they won't fix the problem.

There is a point that you obviously don't understand at all, Doesn't show up on income Its increased debt which of course is paid to the lender , again being at the top tear of income brackets. In 1977 it took 37% of your income to pay your debt load, in 2010 you need 160% of your income to pay your debt load. So tell me then, is there somehow a difference to the average household if they have to pay a dollar on taxes or a dollar on debt. Are both dollars subtracted from total income and isn't debt the same transfer of wealth to the top . I would advise you to look a little deeper. The charts I provided says all that needs to be said.

 

[jbander]

Why in the hell does the right somehow insist that if I want a balanced playing field as far as income/wages is concerned , why does that mean I don't want business to make massive profits. I've made over half my income in my life through the markets. So why would I want business to do bad. There is not one person here who has shown any proof of what I'm saying is false , a few lies, a few I hate you, charging that im communist, total distortions and unthought out premises. I'll be glad to look at anything that argues my position, not opinion people. They are a dime a dozen.

 

[ataraxia]

There are plenty of social programs paid for by tax payers that feed, educate, shelter and clothe people. Healthcare is not a right. How can you conscript a healthcare worker into providing services?

I don’t know. How does every single other developed and even developing nation on the planet do it? And how come they all have healthier populations, by just about every single public health metric, than we do?

How do we “conscript” teachers to teach? And I have not seen the private school system in the country in much jeopardy. If you have the money, there are some very elite private boarding schools all over the country too, about $70,000 a year. It does not mean that we do not have a safety net public school systems.

Food, shelter, a Basic education, and healthcare. These are basic human rights that are included in the Universal declaration of human rights which the United States spearheaded in 1948 and convinced most of the worlds countries to sign in the UN at the time. It is interesting to see that it is it’s under siege now right here at home. The tragic irony.

 

[Neomalthusian]

There are plenty of social programs paid for by tax payers that feed, educate, shelter and clothe people. Healthcare is not a right. How can you conscript a healthcare worker into providing services?

By passing a law. Like Reagan did. If you choose not to accept government reimbursements for health care (which few hospitals choose to do), you aren't conscripted by that law.

 

[eduard]

The definition of rich? Lower class?

 

[KLATTU]

The rich in no way is smacking anyone down they have had the right wing politicians do that for them, with tax laws and rates that forces all the new wealth of this country to the top.

Wait's ,don't you make moneyt first and THEN pay taxes ?

{guffaw}
45 % of people don't pay any FIT/ Can't get much more a break than 0.
sounds like the govt is trying to force wealth to the bottom,no?

 

[Bullseye]

Well, it looks like a growing number are cutting through all the LW "nuh-uhs" and realizing what Trump is doing is working for the economy

Forty-two percent of Americans, a plurality in a new CBS poll, feel optimistic about the future of the economy. Only 33 percent are pessimistic, and it's thanks to President Trump's policies, the respondents noted.

Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed answered that Trump's policies are responsible for the improving economy - 35 percent of whom said his policies had a "great deal" to do with it.

Tax reform was likely a big driver of Americans' optimism. In February, a poll from The New York Times and SurveyMonkey found that a majority (51 percent) had a favorable view of the Republican effort. The legislation, which received zero Democratic votes, resulted in major companies offering thousands of dollars in bonuses to their employees. Top Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi stuck their foot in their mouths by dismissing these perks as "crumbs."

And yes, there's some downsides:

Other poll questions were not so nice to the president. When asked whose interests Trump has most at heart, 88 percent said the wealthy, while only 49 percent said the working and middle class. In a separate inquiry, 84 percent said they believe Trump is looking out for the interests of his family business.

 

[Renae]

The concept of a zero-sum game is a little weird in this context. It need only be a finite-sum game. In a just society, where everyone is working about as hard as they have, incomes should grow at about the same rate. The data clearly indicate that such is not the case--ergo, we do not live in a just society.

Unjust societies can last for quite a while, but the day of reckoning always comes.

To each according to his ability to each according to his need, that sort of Just?

 

[ludin]

The concept of a zero-sum game is a little weird in this context. It need only be a finite-sum game. In a just society, where everyone is working about as hard as they have, incomes should grow at about the same rate. The data clearly indicate that such is not the case--ergo, we do not live in a just society.

Unjust societies can last for quite a while, but the day of reckoning always comes.

Yet you leave out any context for economic issues.
when you run into hard economic times wages tend to drop.

the problem is we don't have a finite sum game either.
The federal reserve can expand or contract the money supply any time they want to.

income growth is based on economic activity and positive economic cycles.
since 2000 we have had 2 major recessions and at least 1 minor one.

In 2000 you had the .com bust along with 9/11.

in 2002 you had the accounting scandals of arther anderson.

then in 2008 you had the banking collapse.

all of those events put negative pressure on businesses and wages.
median family income has been growing just in very small increments.

companies themselves are not handing out pay increases like they use to.
there is a multitude of factors as to why.

 

[ludin]

I agree that we will always have inequality, but we can decide how much inequality is acceptable. The top 1% aren't always more talented or have stronger drives than others. They can inherit wealth and be lucky as well. Either way, a capitalist society will struggle if wealth becomes completely concentrated at the top.

yet again that is not possible if you understand how our banking system and money system works.
Yet most of the 1% have not inherited their wealth. They are first generation rich.

they are business owners and job creators.
You people have no idea who make up the top 1%.

It isn't luck they didn't get there by rolling some dice and going ol yea i hit the jackpot.

 

[Bullseye]

Apparently, Trump's tax cuts are trickling down - several states are reporting/anticipating large increases in tax revenue.

New York's Department of Taxation and Finance, for example, reported in January that it expects tax revenues to go up by $1.1 billion in 2019 because of the tax law. This is a state, mind you, whose governor, Andrew Cuomo, described the tax bill as a "missile of destruction … aimed at New York."

------
Michigan figures revenues will be $1.7 billion higher in 2019. Georgia calculates that state revenues will climb by $5.2 billion over five years. Pennsylvania expects a $340 million bump over the next two years.

The Tax Foundation, which has been collecting this data, reports that 18 states so far say they expect at least a modest boost in revenues as result of the Republican tax plan.

The reason for this windfall is that the tax bill expanded the tax base — by limiting or ending deductions — in exchange for lower income tax rates. In states that rely on federal tax law for their own income taxes, this can result in extra revenue if those states keep their income tax rates the same. (States could also get more tax revenue as tax reform boosts economic growth.)

 

[jbander]

Apparently, Trump's tax cuts are trickling down - several states are reporting/anticipating large increases in tax revenue.

Everyone look at what he wrote , lets ask him how he perceives that as trickling down. Corporate profits so high they can't find places to put it fast enough, how is that trickle down. Average middle class Wages dropping $800 since 2000 and a increase debt that in 1981 needed 39% of their wages to pay their debt load, till now they need 160% of their income to service their debt. and who is all this debt owned by.

 

[jbander]

yet again that is not possible if you understand how our banking system and money system works.
Yet most of the 1% have not inherited their wealth. They are first generation rich.

they are business owners and job creators.
You people have no idea who make up the top 1%.

It isn't luck they didn't get there by rolling some dice and going ol yea i hit the jackpot.

What a joke, what do you think a wealthy person would say if they were asked if they were self made or not. Stupidest hate party comment out there.

 

[jbander]

yet again that is not possible if you understand how our banking system and money system works.
Yet most of the 1% have not inherited their wealth. They are first generation rich.

they are business owners and job creators.
You people have no idea who make up the top 1%.

It isn't luck they didn't get there by rolling some dice and going ol yea i hit the jackpot.

Even Forbes says that bull****, here is a example "
"Let’s cut Mitt Romney some slack. Not every off-the-cuff comment the GOP White House hopeful made at that now infamous, secretly taped $50,000-a-plate fundraiser last May in Boca Raton reveals an utterly shocking personal failing. Take, for instance, Mitt’s remark that he has “inherited nothing.”

A variety of commentators have jumped on Romney for that line. They’ve pointed out that Mitt, the son of a wealthy corporate CEO, has enjoyed plenty of privilege, everything from an elite private school education to a rolodex full of rich family friends he could tap to start up his business career.

On top of all that, the young Mitt also enjoyed $1 million worth of stock his father threw his way to tide him over until big paydays started arriving." From Forbes as a example

 

[jbander]

yet again that is not possible if you understand how our banking system and money system works.
Yet most of the 1% have not inherited their wealth. They are first generation rich.

they are business owners and job creators.
You people have no idea who make up the top 1%.

It isn't luck they didn't get there by rolling some dice and going ol yea i hit the jackpot.

From Forbes "Those “born on first base” — in upper-class families, with inheritances up to $1 million — make up 22 percent of the 400. On “second base,” households wealthy enough to run a business big enough to generate inheritances over $1 million, the new UFE study found another 11.5 percent.

On “third base,” with inherited wealth over $50 million, sit 7 percent of America’s 400 richest. Last but not least, the “born on home plate” crowd. These high-rollers, 21.25 percent of the total Forbes list, all inherited enough to “earn” their way into top 400 status.[pullquote]The narrative of wealth and achievement that Forbes is pushing ignores the other side of the coin.[/pullquote]" so what is that 2/3 had it before they started. The list put a damper on the biggest clown act comment from the right wing.,

 

[vanceen]

Then you have to have the answer why since 1981 all but pennies went to the top. and why should it. We are waiting.
Tax rate for the top bracket went from 70% to 28% what would you think would happen.

A decrease in top tax rates does not explain why middle class and poor incomes stopped growing. In reply to your message below, your charts do not "say it all". You haven't made a case for your assertion that income disparity is due to tax laws.

 

[vanceen]

Then you have to have the answer why since 1981 all but pennies went to the top. and why should it. We are waiting.
Tax rate for the top bracket went from 70% to 28% what would you think would happen.

No, I don't have an answer as to why this has happened (I mentioned devaluation of labor by information technology, but I'm not sure that's a complete explanation). I'm just pointing out that your answer doesn't work.

If we can figure out what has happened, we have a much better chance of fixing it.

 

[Bullseye]

Everyone look at what he wrote , lets ask him how he perceives that as trickling down. Corporate profits so high they can't find places to put it fast enough, how is that trickle down. Average middle class Wages dropping $800 since 2000 and a increase debt that in 1981 needed 39% of their wages to pay their debt load, till now they need 160% of their income to service their debt. and who is all this debt owned by.

You sing all the classic loony left mantras; maybe it's time to engage you brain and think for a change instead of just responding by rote.

Why would state tax collects go up? Because people are making more money. Understand that four months of this tax plan isn't going to solve every economic issue we've had for decades, but it has to start somewhere. Tax revenues don't go up because it's a sunny day - they go up because more economic activity is happening. Consumer confidence is rising, people are buying things - they got that money somewhere, didn't they?

 

[Critter7r]

The driving force of capitalism is that the people who live under it, see it as being fair because it has the promise of the potential to get ahead, something that the hate party has totally taken away for 40 years and without it and when the population understands this, capitalism will lose it's shine and die a slow death and will take this country with it. The right is selling out this country for power and money, they think that the wealthy do it all and should get it all. Adam smith also said at times, that demand won't increase production that the companies for periods can control the markets and that is what is going on now but it has been made easy by the trickle down lie. Highest percentage of gross that is profit in history.

I must be doing a poor job of relating my thoughts, because you're not disagreeing with anything I believe.

 

[ludin]

What a joke, what do you think a wealthy person would say if they were asked if they were self made or not. Stupidest hate party comment out there.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html?_r=2

you should probably do some research before you comment, but that would mean you were actually informed on the subject.
you honestly don't know what HATE comments are.

 

[Critter7r]

You are correct about the wealth generated since the financial crisis of 2008, and, I believe, correct that income distribution is becoming a serious problem.

However, you haven't made any case for your assertion that this is happening because of tax laws. I don't think that's true, since as another poster pointed out, the top earners are paying a higher share of total income tax now than they did ten years ago. ...

Originally Posted by Bullseye

The tax law doesn't move "money to the top". What it does is move tax liability to the top. The highest percentiles are now paying even more of the total tax bill than before

Which is exactly the problem, because they're paying a smaller percentage of more income. They are getting so much more of the income, yet financing their tax cuts on the deficit.

You’re starting with the false pretense that “all new wealth is going to the rich”. That’s not true at all.

Ok, "most", not "all".

... Almost half of people pay no net income tax. Any cut in rates will naturally benefit those who are paying the most tax already, which is why every tax cut is made out to be "for the rich", and the opposite is true of every increase in rates. Finally, tax does not reduce or increase income to anyone, it simply takes a percentage of income; how can it cause an income distribution?

Lower taxes on the rich fails to compensate for it, so it gets worse.

 

[vanceen]

Which is exactly the problem, because they're paying a smaller percentage of more income. They are getting so much more of the income, yet financing their tax cuts on the deficit.



Ok, "most", not "all".



Lower taxes on the rich fails to compensate for it, so it gets worse.

I don't want to misrepresent you, so let me be sure that what your last sentence appears to mean is what you're really trying to say.

You're saying that since the tax system isn't so progressive that it cancels out differences in income distribution, the tax system has caused the differences in income distribution?

 

[LowDown]

You know nothing about economics, first no one has said ever that companies haven't gained in profit, I've charted how much in my chart below, Trickle down changes tax law and tax rate. The only thing that counts is distribution of these profits, So lets look at that. This is my chart from below
View attachment 67233306 This is the realityView attachment 67233307
Which shows that the adjusted income for inflation has gone down $800.00 a year from 2000. Now lets add in the increased debt from 1981 till in this chart 2010 and it has gone up considerably since 2010
View attachment 67233311

Again showing that the right has no clue whatsoever, just lies and distortions

None of this means much without a context. What would each of these indices do if there was no increase in corporate incomes? I suspect that people would have done much worse. Again, unemployment is way down, especially for minorities, and wages are starting to go up. The new jobs don't come from businesses that are not doing well.